Ensuring Academic Integrity during COVID-19 pandemic

By Anosh Butt

Updated Apr 08, 2026

Moving assessment online solved one problem during the COVID-19 pandemic, but created another: how do universities protect academic integrity when students are no longer in the exam hall? This case study reviews Gamage et al. (2020) and shows how institutions used alternative assessment formats, policy guidance, and technology to protect standards while teaching moved online.

The paper notes that campus closures affected more than 60% of the global student population. That disruption reached every phase of education, but it created a particularly acute challenge for secondary and higher education providers that still needed to complete curricula and run summative assessment. Benchmark examinations depend on tightly controlled invigilation, so moving them online introduced uncertainty almost immediately, a challenge also seen in digital clinical assessment. The authors underline the scale of the disruption by listing cancelled examinations including Cambridge International Examinations (CIE), the Scholastic Assessment Test (SAT), the West African Senior School Certificate Examination (WASSCE), and the International English Language Testing System (IELTS).

Solution

The study investigates academic integrity during the COVID-19 pandemic by first outlining the concept, summarising pre-pandemic practice, and introducing assessment security. Gamage et al. (2020) describe academic integrity as a commitment to six fundamental values, honesty, trust, fairness, respect, responsibility, and courage, even in adverse conditions. That definition gives institutions a practical baseline: emergency changes are only defensible if they still protect those values.

The paper also shows how academic integrity is governed differently across countries including the United States, Australia, the Netherlands, Canada, China, and Sri Lanka. In the UK, it points to the Higher Education Review process led by the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA), which assures quality and standards, monitors and advises on sector performance, and helps ensure students receive the higher education experience attached to a UK qualification. For providers redesigning assessment, the benefit of that framework is clear: flexibility still needs an agreed standard.

To map that changing landscape, the researchers review books, university websites, newspapers, and national and institutional policy documents on academic integrity (Gamage et al., 2020). They return repeatedly to the QAA Quality Code for Higher Education because it offers guiding principles that providers can use when shifting assessment online.

The paper then highlights practical alternatives to conventional exams. The University of Glasgow used social media to assess students' skills. The University of Greenwich replaced traditional essays with technology-enabled assessments, virtual labs developed with departmental staff, video presentations, and podcast projects followed by audio-visual feedback in online learning environments (Gamage et al., 2020). Other emergency arrangements included take-home exams, time-constrained assessments (TCAs), and pass or fail grading. The value of these approaches is not novelty for its own sake, but the chance to assess authentic skills while reducing dependence on a single invigilated format.

Measurable impact

The research identifies several barriers to safeguarding assessment security online. Rules are harder to enforce remotely, student support is thinner, technical failures can interrupt participation, and contract cheating becomes easier to arrange. Gamage et al. (2020) also note the financial and social pressure placed on academics and institutions, alongside the fact that academic integrity risks vary by discipline. For universities, the takeaway is that remote assessment design has to account for both misconduct risk and student support.

The authors argue that a universal framework is unrealistic because school systems and qualification structures remain country-specific unless students are sitting international examinations such as CIEs, IELTS, or SATs. Institutions still need to maintain standards and benchmarks for credibility, but they should adapt common principles to local context instead of copying another provider's process wholesale.

Students are the people most directly affected by academic integrity policy, but the paper is clear that responsibility cannot sit with students alone. Saddiqui (2016) argues for shared responsibility across the academic community so misconduct does not go unnoticed. The study also shows that both low-tech controls, such as varied exam versions and invigilation, and high-tech tools, such as plagiarism detection software, can support integrity management (Stephens, 2016). Even so, current technologies remain inadequate for some high-stakes assessments including vivas, thesis submissions, and benchmark examinations. The practical lesson is to combine assessment design, guidance, and proportionate monitoring rather than rely on a single tool.

Gamage et al. (2020) conclude that academic integrity cannot be compromised. Instead, institutions may need to recalibrate benchmarks so they remain attainable, aligned to learning outcomes, and workable during disruption. The wider benefit of that approach is resilience: when providers treat integrity as part of assessment design rather than a last-minute compliance check, they are better placed to protect standards as technology and teaching conditions continue to change.

FAQ

Q: What specific measures are universities taking to combat contract cheating and plagiarism in online assessments?

A: Universities are using a mix of design and detection strategies to reduce contract cheating and plagiarism in online assessment. Plagiarism detection software remains one common safeguard, but it works best alongside assessment formats that require original thinking, reflection, or application to a student's own work. Many institutions also use secure browser technology during exams to limit access to unauthorised resources. Together, these measures make outsourcing harder and help protect honesty and fairness in the assessment process.

Q: How are universities addressing the technological and access inequalities among students for remote learning and assessments?

A: Universities are increasingly addressing digital inequality by combining practical support with more flexible assessment design. Many now provide laptops, tablets, or internet access subsidies so students can participate in online teaching and assessment. Others offer deadline flexibility or alternative assessment formats when access problems would otherwise create an unfair disadvantage. There is also a stronger emphasis on student voice in higher education, with institutions using student feedback to understand access barriers and adjust policy in ways that support equitable participation.

Q: What are the long-term implications of the shift to online assessments on academic integrity policies and practices?

A: The shift to online assessment is likely to have long-term implications for academic integrity policy and practice. As universities use more digital formats, traditional approaches need to be reviewed against challenges such as contract cheating, unauthorised online resources, and unequal access to technology. That is likely to produce more explicit policies for online assessment and a stronger role for student voice in assessment and feedback when those policies are reviewed. Over time, the lessons learned during the pandemic could lead to integrity practices that are both more robust and more adaptable across changing teaching environments.

References

[Source Paper] Gamage, K. A., Silva, E. K. D., & Gunawardhana, N. (2020). Online delivery and assessment during COVID-19: Safeguarding academic integrity. Education Sciences, 10(11), 301.
DOI: 10.3390/educsci10110301

[1] Saddiqui, S. (2016). Engaging students and faculty: Examining and overcoming the barriers. Handbook of academic integrity, 1009-1036.
DOI: 10.1007/978-981-287-079-7_18-1

[2] Stephens, J. M. (2016). Creating cultures of integrity: A multi-level intervention model for promoting academic honesty. Handbook of academic integrity, 996-1003.
DOI: 10.1007/978-981-287-098-8_13

Request a walkthrough

Book a free Student Voice Analytics demo

See all-comment coverage, sector benchmarks, and reporting designed for OfS quality and NSS requirements.

All-comment coverage with HE-tuned taxonomy and sentiment.
Versioned outputs with TEF-ready reporting.
Benchmarks and BI-ready exports for boards and Senate.

Prefer email? info@studentvoice.ai

UK-hosted · No public LLM APIs · Same-day turnaround